Movement when performing

[dave santino]

Which school of thought do you subscribe to? Sit still and let the music do all the work, or move as the feeling takes you? Same question vis a vis facial movements. I ask because it seems to be a bone of contention between many pianists, and especially young vs. old. Personally, I move as and when the feeling takes me, and have often been told that my face mirrors the music I'm playing, which is entirely subconscious.

[rob47]

Hi

i havent posted here in years but i find any movement other than perhaps moving up and down the keyboard a bit stupid.

As soon as one's finger reaches the bottom of any key the sound can't possibly change with dumb smiles or intense leaning in random directions.

true

[dave santino]

I see what you mean, but I wouldn't neccessarily call it "dumb" movement. Obviously, Lang Lang-type rocking constantly backwards and forwards is unnecessary, but Hough/Volods-type facial expressions/movements look fine and add some drama to the performance imo.

[faulty_damper]

As little as possible.  It's only acceptable if the pianist really can't play, then that adds the the required visual effect because clearly the musical one is not interesting.

[mephisto]

When you listen to music you really love, do you then sitt completly still? At least I don`t.
I do only play music that I love and it is natural for me to move a little bit. Whatever feels natural is good.

It must be said that I do sit almost completly still but some times I close my eyes.

[jonslaughter]

What your failing to understand is that while after the note has be sounded you cannot change on piano that is not logical because you can change the next note. The movements, if true, are a psychological effect. They help the performer enter a state that can help express those emotions that he is trying to get at.  When you get angry do you act and look the same as when you are happy? I don't think so. 

I think some performers see the movement as a "ploy" or some type of deceptive thing the performer is doing for visual effects. This might be true in some cases but if your looking at the performer instead of listening to him then your not really in it for the music.  Close your eyes like your suppose to and use your ears.

Does it matter what the performer is doing if your listening to an audio recording? I think not. If it sounds better when he does a lot of "stupid" movements than when he doesn't do you think its still not ok?

Music is about music and should not be about non-musical things.  If a performer wants to masturbate with one hand while he plays a solo line in the other then thats his choice.  If it makes the line sound so much better than anyone else playing it then thats what he should do.  (Ofcourse I wouldn't want to see that and I'm just making up an extreme example)

If, say, the listeners(not viewers) are distracted by the movements then they really should not be listening(i.e, viewing). If they want to use there eyes then they need to go watch a play or opera or something like that. 

Ultimately I think those that feel this kinda stuff isn't good for the music really need to understand that it has a psychological effect.  I'm sure many of you have heard sayings like "if you think it you will believe it" or something like that. I to used to not believe so much in all that type of stuff but through my own experiences I see that it is very important for the music. Sure, if you can play exactly the same way in both cases then one should choose the one with less movement but *if* not then one should choose the one that produces the best sound.

When I play I tend to rock back and forth(and note I'm not anywhere near a decent pianist). I do this though sorta as a timeclock. It seems to make playing easier as when I move forward I play slightly harder(as the arms have more leverage) and when I move back its slightly softer.  Ofcourse if I was any good I might not need the rocking. 

Anyways, I would just say that one shoudln't be to quick to dismiss these things as nonsense because they might actually help.  You don't know for sure but ultimately its up to the performer.  If someone things he looks like a bafoon then so be it.  If they don't like it then they don't have to watch(listen).  Personally I think people like don't care to much about the music because if your busy looking at the performer and looking at his face or hands or whatever then your not focused on the music.

Anyways, thats my 2c.

[jpianoflorida]

move or not move...does it really matter? it's just a matter of opinion! if you do move, watch yourself on video while fastforwarding---you'll get a good laugh! I did!

[penguinlover]

I am in the middle.  I think that too much movement really distracts.  I think that every movement should have a purpose.  I am working on my face.  I actually found myself biting my tongue as I played the other day.  Music should be enjoyable, and my face should show that.  If I don't enjoy playing, people won't enjoy hearing it.  I try not to grimace when I make a mistake, I often find myself talking to myself.  That kind of movement must stop.  Anything that would take away from the music is unnecessary.

[franz_]

Most of the times I prefer the 3rd movement.

[rc]

That was well put JonSlaughter.

If I'm able to play the music and my eyebrows want to quirk so be it.  I don't think it's worth worrying about.  A little unconsious swaying is perfectly natural.

[debussy symbolism]

Greetings.

Some movement is okay.

[invictious]

Not to the extent of lang lang though.





That's unacceptable

[Kassaa]

Isn't he just looking to the conductor there?

[jonslaughter]

@invictious

And who the hell are you do determine what is acceptable and what isn't? Are you better than Lang?  If so then you still have no right to determine this. It is a sign of an ego complex.  It might be unacceptable for you(which you have to ask why) but theres no way you can say its unacceptable for someone else. 

Seriously, why do you think its unacceptable? Because you were told that by your teacher? Do you have any good reasons why it is unacceptable? (like maybe it makes the music sound bad(which is obviously stupid)).

You seem to be more concerned with out someone looks than how they sound.  I think maybe you need to into fashion instead because thats where most people with this mentality end up.

Now, if Lang is doing this stuff for show then obviously its unacceptable because he's not doing it for the music. But I can't see how you or anyone else could determine that.

An example is when a kid likes some "musician" because the things it will make him cool... even though the music might suck. This happens with a lot of rap music. Guys run around listening to the crap in the cars turn up so everyone else can hear too. Why do they do that? Is it because they love the music so much that they have to ruin there hearing? You really think that they can hear it when its that loud? The whole purpose is because they want you to hear what there listening to because they want you to think they are "cool".  So they feel as if that music has some ability to determine who they are. If it was country music that did that they would use it.  The point is that they are not listening to the music for musical reasons. If they did they would need to turn it up so loud so the whole city could hear them. I do understand that some people like to listen to the music loud but theres a put when you cannot hear any more. Why do I know this? Because I used to do the same thing. I could be wrong but I doubt it.

Once I started listening to the music for musical reasons I then rarely turned up the music beyond reasonable levels. i.e., if something is suppose to sound p and you turn it up to sound fffffffff then you won't get the proper effect because of how the ear and speakers compress and limit the sounds along with amplifying the noice level.

So anyways, The point is music is suppose to be about music and thats all.  Any interference with that is bad. If NOT moving during performence NEGATIVELY effects the music quality then its bad.  If moving does negatively effect performance then it is bad too.  Its very hard to judge these things though specially from the outside. We can only hope that Lang is being authentic when he does what he does. (one way to find out would be to see him when he is practicing along and see if he does these movements)

[Kassaa]

Extreme body movement might have a bad influence on the sound you produce because the pressure on your fingers change with each movement, which will make slow and soft things irregular.

[zheer]

  There is no right or wrong, its all about preference, Richter at an advanced stage in his career would play in almost complete darkness, when asked if it is important to look at the performers facila expression and movement , Richter said whats the point no need to look at the performer its only the music that matters.
Afred  brendel in a interview said that once he moved so much in a performance that his glasses ended on the ground behind him, he was so horrified that he decided to do something about it. So he began to practice next to a mirror, to reduce his body movement, know if you watch him he only pulls a funy face. Arrau in a inteview said that one should reduce unnecessary body movement to really connect with the music, Chopin according to those who heard him would notice that the only part of his body whichwas fully active was his hand and wrist .
   I think that one should do what comes natural to them, if its moving from side to side then why not, we are all different. Most pianist including myself find it hard to move the body and play at the same.

[lazlo]

I think its a gray area. It becomes irritating when the performer is insincere and doing it just for the audience. But when a musician really becomes the music, such as the case was with Glenn Gould... Not sure fault can be placed, though he was (in)famous for his unusual mannerisms. A huge part of performing now is stage presence, and part of good showmanship is showing the audience that you are into the music. One way of doing that is playing really amazingly well. Another way is to move your body. Both excite reactions from the audience, thus serving their purposes (until they become distracting). Some I have found combine these different showmanship ideas in different degrees to what I thought was a great performance. In the end, what it comes down to for me, is, can they play well? And if they can play well swaying up and down side to side, humming along witht eh music figeting with their suit, then I guess I must  conclude more power to them. Its much more irritating when someone has excess bodily movements who is not a good musician, or who obviously thinks they're much better than they are. Just my thoughts...

[numerian]

This is a very old argument.  Chopin played with minimum apparent effort, while Liszt was so physically involved with the music that it was one of the most noticed elements of his performance.  Both were successful at communicating their musical message.  Perhaps there are kinesthetic aspects that come into the question, especially if it can be established that exaggerated movement impedes touch or tone. 

But other than this, the question isn't so much what effect movement has on the performer, but on the audience in the concert hall.  There are some facial expressions and body swaying that detract from the overall effect, because at least in my experience the aural perception is interrupted by the visual distraction.  Lang Lang is a good example.  I can't really concentrate on his playing while watching him on TV or up close at a concert, but if I'm in the upper balcony where he looks like a speck on the stage, his playing is magnificent.  The eyes closed, excessive body swaying fashion of playing the piano is equally intrusive - I always get the impression it is contrived and the performer is trying to convince the listener that something emotionally significant is going on with the music, when it isn't.

The one artist I saw who truly electrified and connected with the audience consistently was Horowitz, and there was nothing excessive about his movements.

[mephisto]

Do you have any good reasons why it is unacceptable? (like maybe it makes the music sound bad(which is obviously stupid)).

Sorry this post is completly off topic. But you are the only person i ahev seen do that correctly with the:(.........(......)) thing.

[gyzzzmo]

Lots of people think you can play better when you move more 

[rc]

Another thought, that a lot of extra movements may have come from an earlier time and were contrived but over time became habitual...  Second nature.  Maybe even to the point of not impeding the music.

[thierry13]

Do we agree, if one begins to learn notes on the keyboard, and play them at his best, to what comes natural, (without teacher) it will be a, in mostly all cases, a wrong piano technique, wich needs to be corrected ? It's the same with the body motion habit. The only motions that should be used, are moving from right to left when you have to play with say both hands in very high notes, or both hands on very low notes ... and the other acceptable movements, are to feel your WHOLE body resting on your fingers, so sometimes you will have to lean A LITTLE BIT forward to put more weight on your fingers. Apart of that, all moves are useless, if not bad, for the music itself.

[kempff1234]

I tend to stay still while playing. IMO, it's truly something that you can not control. Ofcourse Brendel said that he tried to correct his numerous faces that he makes while playing, when he saw himself in the mirror or on tv. However he still does move around a bit. I sometimes find myself moving to something rhythmic or emotional (particularly when I play Chopin). However there are times that I have sat so still that someone has come to check if I am sleeping or not.

My personal role model is Arthur Rubinstein. He never had a single un-neccessary movement. Everything was there for a reason, there were times that he would sway from side to side (those who have seen his DVD playing Grieg, Chopin and Saint Saens concerti know this) and yet there were other times where there was only music and nothing else.

[prongated]

...Pletnev is a nice example of a pianist who barely moves a hair when he performs...

Anyway up until recently, I move a lot, make facial expressions, sniff the keys a lot, and sometimes hit my head on the piano lid I simply followed the flow of the music - if it's soft I'd crouch, if it's painful I'd cringe, etc. I continue this, despite being told otherwise by my teacher.

However I recently realised that it detracts from what I should be doing with the piano - the sound. Sometimes I got caught with too much emotion that I forgot about the kind of sound I'm making. It is important to note that the sound should be the expressive device - and I'm not necessarily creating expressive sounds, just because I can feel the music so much so that my body follows it.

In fact, now that I move a lot less, my process of thinking changes when I play. While I sit still and up straight, I somehow manage to then think about how I should play every note. No longer am I simply listening to myself play and get carried away, as shown through body movements - I am now focused enough to be able to tell myself what I want to hear next and how to do it.

This is my personal experience. And in restrospect, I'm not saying that you cannot be musical and expressive if you move around. However, I think any pianist will benefit from attempting to sit still and focus merely on the sound that is being made and that should be made. After all, according to Berman, that's a mindset that musicians should have when they practise

...so yes I admire Pletnev for being an extremely focused musician

[zheer]

...so yes I admire Pletnev for being an extremely focused musician

  A true master does not cry from his own emotion.

[jamie0168]

Moving to your performance, I believe, shows your dedication to the music. However, there is a point where it becomes distracting, and at that point, you are not doing any justice to the music. Decide where the line is between emotion, and too much of it.